BU MET > people > student center > academic conduct > academic conduct code

Academic Conduct Code

I. Philosophy of Discipline
The objective of Metropolitan College in enforcing academic rules is to promote the kind of community atmosphere in which learning can best take place. This atmosphere can be maintained only so long as every student believes that his or her academic competence is being judged fairly and that he or she will not be put at a disadvantage because of the dishonesty of someone else. Penalties imposed should be carefully determined so as to be no more or no less than required to maintain the desired atmosphere. In defining violation of this code the intent is to protect the integrity of the educational process.

II. Academic Misconduct
Academic misconduct is conduct by which a student misrepresents his or her academic accomplishments or impedes other students' chances of being judged fairly for their academic work. Knowingly allowing others to represent your work as theirs is as serious an offense as submitting another's work as your own.

III. Violations of this Code
Violations of this code are acts that constitute an attempt to be dishonest or deceptive in the performance of academic work in or out of the classroom. To alter academic records, or to collaborate with another student or students in an act of academic misconduct. Violations include but are not limited to:

Cheating on examinations. Any attempt by a student to alter his or her performance on an examination in violation of that examination's stated or commonly understood ground rules.
Plagiarism. Any attempt by a student to represent the work of another as his or her own. Plagiarism includes each of the following: copying the answers of another student on an examination, copying or substantially restating the work of another person or persons in any oral or written work without citing the appropriate source, and collaboration with someone else in an academic endeavor without acknowledging his or her contribution (see below for a more detailed definition of plagiarism).
Misrepresentation or falsification of data presented for surveys, experiments, etc.
Theft of an examination. Stealing or otherwise discovering and/or making known to others the contents of an examination that has not yet been administered.
Unauthorized conversation is not allowed during examinations. Any unauthorized conversation may be considered prima facie evidence of cheating.
Knowingly allowing another student to represent your work as his or her own.
Forgery, alteration, or knowing misuse of graded examinations, grade lists, or official University records or documents, including but not limited to transcripts, letters of recommendation, degree certificates, alteration of examinations or other work after submission.
Theft or destruction of examinations or papers after submission including purposefully altering possible poor performance.
Submitting the same work in more than one course without the consent of the instructors involved.
Altering or destroying another student's work or records, altering records of any kind, removing materials from libraries or offices without consent, or in any way interfering with the work of others so as to impede their academic performance.
Failure to comply with the sanctions imposed under the authority of this code.

IV. Penalties

The Student Academic Conduct Review Board shall have jurisdiction in cases involving violation of this code.
Students may not be penalized for academic conduct violations except through action of the Academic Conduct Review Board. Faculty members retain the full right, however, to assign grades reflecting their assessment of students' work, including the determination of how work involved in an incident of academic misconduct contributes to the final course grade.
Students who believe that a faculty member has penalized themfor alleged acts of academic misconduct without having brought the matter to the attention of the Academic Conduct Review Board should make such concerns known to the dean.
If the accused is found guilty the following penalties may be imposed:
1. No penalty for minor violations that do not warrant sanction.
2. Reprimand
  1. For violations of a minor nature or mitigated by extenuating circumstances.
  2. A copy of the reprimand shall be placed in the student's file but shall not be recorded on his/her permanent academic record. Past reprimands may be considered in imposing sanctions for further offenses.
  3. Reprimands are not to be made public when records, transcripts, etc., are sent out.
  4. Places no restriction on the student's participation in academic or non-academic College or all-University activities.
3. Disciplinary probation
  1. For violations deemed serious enough to warrant some abridgment of the student's rights and privileges.
  2. Given for a specified period of time.
  3. Recorded on the student's permanent internal record.
  4. Prohibits the student from being an officer in any recognized all-University or College student organization and from participating in intercollegiate activities during the specified period.
4. Suspension
5. Expulsion
6. Other sanctions
7. Dissemination of information

Academic conduct code review board

I. Procedures

Proceedings before the Board are instituted when the Dean forwards the complainant's report to the chairman of the Board. The Board shall consist of four faculty members appointed by the Dean of Metropolitan College. In addition, the Dean for Student Affairs shall be a member of the Board. Finally, two students shall be appointed by the Dean of the College. This Board has jurisdiction over every alleged act of academic misconduct on the part of (a) any student enrolled in the Metropolitan College, and (b) any student enrolled in a course taught in the College, whether that student is enrolled in the College or some other School at this University or any other college or university.
Faculty in the Metropolitan College shall, after discussing the matter with the student in question, notify the Dean or his or her designee, of any documented violation of the code. The notification shall include the student's name and ID number, the course in which the alleged violation occurred, and a statement indicating any and all supporting evidence upon which the professor has relied. The Dean shall then refer the charges and supporting evidence to the Board, which shall then proceed with a hearing.
The Chairman of the Review Board shall inform the student (by hand-delivered or certified letter with return receipt, to be sent at least twelve days prior to the hearing) of the following matters:
1. The charges.
2. The date, time, and location of the hearing.
3. The fact that the student may be accompanied by and advisor of his or her choice, who may be an attorney, but that, other than making a statement on behalf of the student, the advisor may not participate directly in the hearing.
4. The fact that he or she shall have the right to examine the person bringing the charges, to have access to all documents that have been introduced as evidence, and to have copies prepared, and at the discretion of the chairman and in a manner to be prescribed by the chairman, to examine all witnesses.
Hearings

Members of the Board shall be excused if the case might involve a conflict of interest (e.g., kinship, teacher-student relationship, etc.).
The Dean may appoint pro tempore members to replace regular members who are unable to attend or who have been excused.
A representative from the home College of any non-MET student shall be invited to attend, but will not vote.
No student shall be found guilty except on the vote of a majority of the voting members present at a hearing.
The quorum for hearings shall be five voting members of the Board, at least three of whom shall be faculty members.
The chairman shall be counted as a voting member, but shall cast his or her vote only in order to break a tie vote.
A hearing shall proceed in the absence of the accused student only if the Board is satisfied that proper notice of the hearing was given to the student and that there is no legitimate cause for the absence.
The order of the hearing shall be as follows:

Presentation of charges by the Board chairman.
Presentation and examination of material evidence and witnesses by the Board and by the accused student(s) but excluding material relevant to sanctions to be imposed. In appropriate circumstances the chairman may take steps to protect a witness through actions such as sequestering, not divulging a witness's identity, or the taking of testimony prior to a hearing.
Statement by the accused student and his or her advisor.
After excusing the accused student and advisor and witnesses, deliberation of the Board.
Formulation of the judgment and assessment of any appropriate penalty by a majority vote of the members present.

The chairman shall make the necessary determination of the scope of the inquiry with a view to according full and fair exploration of relevant material.
Because the hearing is not a court hearing, the Board is not bound by legal rules of evidence. However, every effort will be make to conduct hearings as fairly and expeditiously as possible.
The hearing shall not be public and information gained at the hearing shall be treated as privileged information by all participants. This does not bar disclosing the findings and recommendations of the Board to those authorized to receive such information. Inasmuch as this provision is for the protection of the accused, it does not bar him or her from disclosing the proceedings, if he or she wishes.
At the request of the accused student, the chairman of the Academic Conduct Review Board, at his or her discretion, elect to admit parents or legal guardians and may, at his or her discretion, allow a statement on behalf of the student by a parent or legal guardian.
The hearing shall be conducted with proper decorum. The hearing may be recessed by the chairman if:

Additional evidence or witnesses are needed.
It is apparent that a fair hearing cannot be held because of disturbances, illness, or similar causes.

The College may, from time to time, make public the facts and decisions of cases that come before the Board. However, such reports shall not reveal the name of any student, professor, or course involved in a case that has been heard by the Board.

Recommendation
The complete recommendations, including a statement of the charges, evidence, and judgment, shall be transmitted to the Dean as soon as possible after the hearing at which the judgment was made. The Dean shall review the report and the appropriateness of the recommended sanctions. The factual findings of the Board shall not be replaced by findings more damaging to the student unless the Dean has submitted new evidence for a rehearing. Similarly, the Dean shall not impose ;more severe sanctions than those recommended by the Board.

In the case of non-MET students, the Dean shall transmit the Board's recommendations to the Dean of the student's college. In the event that the Dean of said college shall deviate substantially from the recommendations of the Dean of Metropolitan College, the latter may, upon the recommendation of the Student Academic Conduct Review Board, and question from taking courses in Metropolitan College for a period of time that shall reflect the intent of the original recommendation.
The Dean shall notify the student by certified letter of the judgment and penalty imposed and that such findings and sanctions are subject to final review by the Provost after all appeals within the College have been exhausted. The letter shall also inform the student of the procedure for appeal.

II. Appeals

Within two weeks of the receipt of the Dean's letter a student may appeal the judgment or the penalty to the Provost. Appeals are to be in writing, setting forth the basis of the appeal and whether the student is appealing the judgment, the penalty, or both.
The Provost shall review the documentation or refer the appeal to the Board for clarification and comments.
A rehearing normally will be ordered only if new evidence is presented. The procedure at a rehearing will be similar to the format used for the initial hearing.
After the rehearing a recommendation will be made to the Provost.
Before making a decision, the provost may conduct his or her own investigation if he or she feels it is warranted.

III. Non-MET Violations
When MET students are called before academic conduct committees of another College in the University:

A MET representative should be present at the hearing and deliberations. The Dean of the school or college holding the hearing shall inform the dean of MET of the nature of the charge and the time of the hearing.
After such hearing, the Dean shall review the report and judgment and at his or her discretion may refer the case to the Academic Conduct Review Board. Unless special problems are apparent which should be discussed by the Board, the Dean shall reach a judgment and assess an appropriate penalty.
The MET student shall be notified in the same manner as specified above, but a copy of the letter should be sent to the Dean of the College in which the original hearing was held.
Appeal procedures, section II above, with respect to the judgment shall be filed through the College in which the hearing is held: appeals with respect to the penalty shall be filed through Metropolitan College. In the event that a student appeals both the judgment and the penalty, the appeal should first go through College in which the hearing was held and then Metropolitan College.

IV. Reporting and Documenting Procedures
All evidence must be carefully documented in accordance with the guidelines set forth below:

The person originating the charges shall present them in writing, accompanied by suitable exhibits, to the Office of the Dean. That person shall make himself or herself available to the Dean for prehearing conferences if necessary, and shall appear at the Student Academic Conduct hearing.
Witnesses to the alleged infraction of the Student Academic Conduct Code may be requested to file a report on the incident and shall make themselves available for prehearing conferences and Student Academic Conduct hearings.
The following are the guidelines for obtaining evidence of violations of the Student Academic Conduct Code in connection with:
1. Examinations.
  If an irregularity occurs during an examination, the person who originally notes the irregularity should attempt to have his or her observations corroborated by others who are also in the room (proctors, and so on). The person(s) making the report shall provide specific information such as the time of the observation, type of irregularity observed, number of times it took place, exactly which sections of the examination were affected by the infraction, the names of each individuals participating in the irregularity, and the extent of participation by each one.
2. Papers.
  If the misconduct is inferred from the appearance and/or content of a paper of other assignment where the professor or proctor has had no chance to observe the actual process, specific reference should be make to each section that gives evidence of misconduct. Where possible, copies of pertinent sections and copies of any other pertinent material (original sources from which section or sections were allegedly plagiarized, and so on) should be submitted with the report to the Dean.
3. Other types of academic misconduct. Reports should be prepared using the same rules of careful observation and accurate documentation as outlined above.
The Dean of Metropolitan College will be responsible for
1. Investigating the charges.
2. Convening the hearing when appropriate.
3. Administering other procedures which may be required by the finding of the investigation.

Plagiarism

A Definition of Plagiarism
"The academic counterpart of the bank embezzler and of the manufacturer who mislabels products is the plagiarist: the student or scholar who leads readers to believe that what they are reading is the original work of the writer when it is not. If it could be assumed that the distinction between plagiarism and honest use of sources is perfectly clear in everyone's mind, there would be no need for the explanation that follows; merely the warning with which this definition concludes would be enough. But it is apparent that sometimes people of goodwill draw the suspicion of guilt upon themselves (and, indeed, are guilty) simply because they are not aware of the illegitimacy of certain kinds of "borrowing" and of the procedures for correct identification of materials other than those gained through independent research and reflection."

"The spectrum is a wide one. At one end there is a word-for-word copying of another's writing without enclosing the copied passage in quotation marks and identifying it in a footnote, both of which are necessary. (This includes, of course, the coping of all or any part of another student's paper.) It hardly seems possible that anyone of college age or more could do that without clear intent to deceive. At the other end there is the almost casual slipping in of a particularly apt term which one has come across in reading and which so aptly expresses one's opinion that one is tempted to make it personal property.

Between these poles there are degrees and degrees, but they may be roughly placed in two groups. Close to outright and blatant deceit-but more the result, perhaps, of laziness than of bad intent-is the patching together of random jottings made in the course of reading, generally without careful identification of their source, and then woven into the text, so that the result is a mosaic of other people's ideas and words, the writer's sole contribution being the cement to hold the pieces together. Indicative of more effort and, for that reason, somewhat closer to honest, though still dishonest, is the paraphrase, and abbreviated (and often skillfully prepared) restatement of someone else's analysis or conclusion, without acknowledgment that another person's text has been the basis for the recapitulation."

{The two paragraphs above are from H. Martin and R. Ohmann, The Logic and Rhetoric of Exposition, Revised Edition. Copyright 1963, Holt, Rinehart & Winston.}

Examples of Plagiarism
The examples given below should make clear the dishonest and the proper use of source material. If instances occur which these examples do not seem to cover, conscience will in all likelihood be prepared to supply advice.

THE SOURCE
"The importance of the Second Treatise of Government printed in this volume is such that without it we would miss some of the familiar features of our own government. It is safe to assert that the much criticized branch known as the Supreme Court obtained its being as a result of Locke's insistence upon the separation of powers; and that the combination of many powers in the hands of the executive under the New Deal has still to encounter opposition because it is contrary to the principles enunciated therein, the effect of which is not spent, though the relationship may not be consciously traced. Again we see the crystallizing force of Locke's writing. It renders explicit and adapts to the British politics of this day the trend and aim of writers form Languet and Bodin through Hooker and Grotius, to say nothing of the distant ancients, Aristotle and the Stoic School of natural law. It sums up magistrally the arguments used through the ages to attack authority vested in a single individual, but it does so from the particular point of view engendered by the Revolution of 1688 and is in harmony with the British scene and mental climate of the growing bourgeoisie of that age. Montesquieu and Rousseau, the framers of our own Declaration of Independence, and the statesmen (or should we say merchants and speculators?) who drew up the Constitution have reechoed its claims for human liberty, for the separation of powers, for the sanctity of private property. In the hands of these it has been the quarry of liberal doctrines; and that it has served the Socialist theory of property based on labor is final proof of its breadth of view."

{Charles L. Sherman, "Introduction" to John Locke,
Treatise of Civil Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration}

WORD-FOR-WORD PLAGIARIZING
"It is not hard to see the importance of the Second Treatise of Government to our own democracy. Without it we would miss some of the most familiar features of our own government. It is safe to assert that the much criticized branch known as the Supreme Court obtained its being as a result of Locke's insistence upon the separation of powers; and that the combination of many powers in the hands of the executive is contrary to the principles enunciated therein, the effect of which is not spent, though the relationship may not be consciously traced. The framers of our own Declaration of Independence and the statesman who drew up the Constitution have reechoed its claims for human liberty, for the separation of powers, for the sanctity of private property. All these are marks of influence of Locke's Second Treatise on our own way of life."
THE MOSAIC
"The crystallizing force of Locke's writing may be seen in the effect his Second Treatise of Government had in shaping some of the familiar features of our own government. That much criticized branch known as the Supreme Court and the combination of many powers in the hands of the executive under the New Deal are modern examples. But even the foundation of our state-the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution-have reechoed its claims for human liberty, for the separation of powers, for the sanctity of private property. True, the influence of others is also marked in our Constitution-from the trend and aim of writers like Languet and Bodin, Hooker and Grotius to say nothing of Aristotle and the Stoic school of natural law; but the fundamental influence is Locke's Treatise, the very quarry of liberal doctrines." Note how the following phrases have been lifted out of the original text and moved into new patterns:

"crystallizing force of Locke's writing"

"some of the familiar features of our own government"

"much criticized branch known as the Supreme Court"

"combination of many powers in the hands of the executive under the New Deal"

"have reechoed its claims for human liberty…property"

"from the trend and aim…Grotius"

"to say nothing of Aristotle and...natural law"

"quarry of liberal doctrines"

As in the first example, there is really no way of legitimizing such a procedure. To put every stolen phrase within quotation marks would produce and almost unreadable, and quite worthless, text.
THE PARAPHRASE
Paraphrase:
"Many fundamental aspects of our own government are apparent in the Second Treatise of Government. One can safely say that the oft-censured Supreme Court really owes its existence to the Lockean demand that Powers in government be kept Separate; equally one can say that the Allocation of varied and widespread Authority to the President during the Era of the New Deal has still to encounter opposition because it is contrary to the principles enunciated therein…Once more it is possible to note the way in which Locke's writing clarified existing opinion."

Original:
"Many familiar features of our own government are apparent in the Second Treatise of Government. It is safe to assert that the much criticized….Court obtained its existence upon separation of powers; and that the hands of the executive under the New Deal has still to encounter opposition because it is contrary to the principles enunciated therein… Again we see the crystallizing force of Locke's writing."

The foregoing comparison shows how the writer has simply traveled along with the original text, substituting approximately equivalent terms except where his or her understand falters, as it does with crystallizing, or where the ambiguity of the original requires too much ingenuity to decipher, as it apparently does as in "to encounter opposition…consciously traced" in the original. Such a procedure as the one shown in this example has its uses; for one thing, it is valuable for the reader as well. How, then, may it properly be used? The procedure is simple. The writer might begin the second sentence with "As Sherman notes in the introduction to his edition of the Treatise, one can safely say…" and conclude the paraphrase passage with a footnote giving the additional identification necessary. Or he or she might indicate directly the exact nature of what is being done, in this fashion: "To paraphrase Sherman's comment…" and conclude that also with a footnote indicator.

In point of fact, this course does not particularly lend itself to hones paraphrase, with the exception of that one sentence which the paraphraser above copied without change except for abridgment. The purpose of paraphrase would be to simplify or to throw new and significant light on a text; it requires much skill if it is to be used honestly, and should be used rarely by the student except for the purpose, as suggested above, of personal enlightenment.
THE "APT" TERM
"The Second Treatise of Government is a veritable quarry of liberal doctrines. In it the crystallizing force of Locke's writing is markedly apparent. The cause of human liberty, the principle of separation of powers, and the inviolability of private property--all three major dogmas of American constitutionalism--owe their presence in our Constitution in large part to the remarkable Treatise which first appeared around 1685 and was destined to spark within three years a revolution in the land of its author's birth and, ninety years later, another revolution against that land."

Here the writer has not been able to resist the appropriation of two striking terms—"quarry of liberal doctrines" and "crystallizing force"; a perfectly proper use of the terms would have required only the addition of a phrase: "The Second Treatise of Government is, to use Sherman's suggestive expression, a "quarry of liberal doctrines." In it the "crystallizing force"—the term again is Sherman's--of Locke's writing is markedly apparent."

Other phrases in the text above—"the cause of human liberty, " "the principle of the separation of powers, " "the inviolability of private property"—are clearly drawn directly from the original source but are so much matters in the public domain, so to speak, that on one could reasonably object to their reuse in this fashion.

Since one of the principal aims of a college education is the development of intellectual honesty, it is obvious that plagiarism is particularly serious offense, and the punishment for it is commensurately severe. What a penalized student suffers can never really be known by anyone but that student; what the student who plagiarized and "gets away with it" suffers is less public and probably less acute, but the corruptness of the act, the disloyalty and baseness it entails, must inevitably leave a mark on him or hear as well as on the institution.
MAKING A BIBLIOGRAPHY: USING FOOTNOTES
Essays written for college courses generally require the use of sources: books, periodicals, and other documents containing information relevant to the topic of the essay to be written. The citation of such sources occurs in one or both of two places: footnotes an a bibliography appended to the essay.

Very simply, a bibliography lists the books, periodicals, and other documents actually used in the preparation of the essay; a footnote indicates very precisely the source of a quotation or specific statement occurring in the text of the essay. For both, a more-or-less standardized system has been developed so that readers anywhere can turn quickly from the footnote or the bibliographical listing to the proper source and be sure that they have at hand the cited work.

Just as honesty requires quotation marks around any statement copied directly from a written source, it requires a footnote to indicate the place from which information has been gathered, or from which paraphrased reconstructions are woven into the text.
A fine bibliography and careful footnoting, not matter how ably prepared, will not make up for the deficiency in reasoning, style, and substance of the essay proper, but they do enhance the value of good scholarly writing because they act as auxiliary agents in the process of communication.
USE OF SOURCES OBTAINED FROM A COMPUTER NETWORK
The requirement to document, with proper citations, material obtained from sources other than the mind of the writer applies to words, ideas, drawings, images, and any other items obtained via electronic media such as the Internet. For example, if the writer paraphrases a paragraph from a World Wide Web site, the same procedure should be followed as outlined in item (3) above. The proper citation in the footnote and/or bibliography should include the author (if known), the name or title of the electronic site, the date, and the URL or Internet address.

Some instructors may, at their discretion, forbid use of electronic sources for a given assignment or for all assignments in the course. If, despite this instruction, a student uses and cites an electronic source, a low grade may result, but the action by itself is not a violation of the Academic Conduct Code.
EXCESSIVE COLLABORATION
In a laboratory of a natural science course, four students work together in a group, collecting the same data. In the syllabus, the instructor has stated that collaboration on laboratory exercises is allowed up to the point of discussing procedures and checking on the consistency of data to guard against typographical errors. Each student, however, must analyze the data and answer the questions in the lab book independently. While writing up the exercise, one student asks another in his group to show him the graphs that the second student plotted using the data. Realizing that his own graphs were in error, he draws new graphs that correspond to those of the second student.

In this example, the first student has clearly exceeded the extent of collaboration allowed according to the syllabus, as has the second student by permitting the first to see her graphs. Both are therefore guilty of violations of the Academic Conduct Code.

Note that if the extent of the collaboration allowed is not stated explicitly in the syllabus, the students in the class must assume that not collaboration whatsoever is allowed after the group works together in the laboratory.

Appendix: Examples of Misconduct

The following list contains some examples of academic misconduct, and is not intended to be complete. Note that, although the examples refer to written assignments and exams, the same rules apply to assignments and exams that are administered or presented orally or by some other non-written means.

{Adapted from Academic Dishonesty among College Students, S. Maramark and M.B. Maline, US Dept. of Education report no. OR-93-3082, August 1993.}

Copying from another student's exam or assignment
Allowing another student to copy from your exam or assignment
Allowing another student to see your exam or to see part or all of your assignment before you hand it in, unless authorized by the instructor
Collaborating on assignments or take-home exams when instructions (or the syllabus) call for independent work
Providing or receiving answers to an exam using a system of signals or other means of communication with another student
Bringing unauthorized materials to an exam without placing them where they cannot be used during the exam
Altering the answers to, or otherwise tampering with, exams or assignments after they have been handed in, without the consent of the instructor
Taking an exam or completing part or all of an assignment for another student
Having another person take an exam for you or complete part or all of one or more of your assignments
Hiring a ghostwriter to write part or all of an assignment
Submitting all or part of a purchased term paper as your own
Using course materials, including lecture notes and excerpts from textbooks, in written assignments without proper citation
Using paraphrased materials in a written assignment without proper citation of the source
Downloading text, drawings, images, and other materials from the World Wide Web and using these in written assignments without proper citation of the sources
Copying material without proper citation
Feigning illness to avoid taking an exam or handing in an assignment on time
Submitting the same term paper for credit to more than on source without permission
Reviewing a copy of the regularly scheduled exam prior to taking a make-up exam
Reviewing a stolen copy of an exam prior to taking the exam
Providing questions from a test given in one section of a course to students in another section before they have taken the test
Receiving questions from a test given in one section of a course from another student in another section before you have taken the test
Altering or forging an official University document

Community

Academic Conduct Code

Academic conduct code review board

Plagiarism

Appendix: Examples of Misconduct